(CNSNews.com) – Christian evangelist Franklin
Graham, the son of world renowned Rev. Billy Graham, said that to change his
view that homosexual behavior is sinful would require God to change His word on
the topic and “God doesn’t” change, His word is “the same yesterday and today,
and a million years from now.”
Graham, who runs the international relief group Samaritan’s Purse,
made his comments on NBC’s Meet the Press on Dec. 29. In interviewing Graham,
correspondent Harry Smith asked, “Graham`s call to serve the less fortunate is
something he shares with Pope Francis. And he applauds the new pope, but to a
point. He [the Pope] was asked about gays in the church and he said, ‘who am I
to judge?’ Would there be a shift for you on that issue?”
Franklin Graham answered, “Well, God would have
to shift, and God doesn`t. God`s word is the same yesterday and today and a
million years from now, and it`s a sin.”
“But to wink at sin and to tell somebody it`s
okay, when I know the consequences of what will happen one day when they have
to stand before God,” said Graham. “So I want to warn people, and I think
the Pope is right when he says he is not the judge. He is not the judge. God is
the judge.”
Earlier in the interview Graham said, “Well,
I`ve never really been one to try to be politically correct. I just feel truth
is truth, and sometimes I probably offend some people.”
Graham’s father, the world renowned Rev. Billy
Graham, is 95 and reportedly not in good health. Franklin Graham also
runs his father’s organization, the Billy
Graham Evangelistic Association. In commenting on his father to
NBC, Graham said he is “extremely weak” and that he is asking people to “pray
for him.”
13 comments:
At last - it was beginning to get just a tad one-sided. Mr Graham is spot-on.
Is Franklin for real or simply appeasing his father? Surely he can't be that naive! I don't have all the answers but my mind's been opened these last few years by this website and some others. And I'm embarrassed by my opinions of just a few years ago.
Former officer Raleigh-Durham
Franklin says,
"God`s word is the same yesterday and today and a million years from now . . ."
So, to which version or translation of God's word is Franklin referring?
And yet Franklin, and so many others believe they are REQUIRED to set the rest of the world straight (pun intended)-- That THEY will go to hell if they don't speak up and pronounce what God's judgment will surely BE.
Actually, I am all for being judgmental, we NEED to be judgmental, but ONLY of our selves -- not anyone else.
Active, Eastern, USA
This debate seems to fizzling out. The 'pros' are very vocal, the emotional are being sucked in, and the 'antis', having said their piece, have all but abandoned any contributions. There is a great divide, and it's almost like the elections they had in Ireland on the EU issue. They had one - the people gave their opinion. Because it wasn't what the powers-that-be wanted, they had another one - which narrowly went in favour. So it is with this argument - wear down the opposition until you get what you think is the 'right' train of thought. No matter how 'balanced' people think the presentation of articles have been, there is but one 'agenda' - to get everyone to be inclusive and accept LGBT within the church. It's not going to happen. Whatever the outcome, there will be division on this subject. The 'pros' see the refusal to budge by the 'antis' as spiritual blindness, and the 'antis' also have the same view of the 'pros' - that they are part of the biblical doctrinal shift in the last days as portrayed in the Bible - deceivers etc - you all know the passage. I now find the constant barrage of these articles quite wearing, as I don't conform to the 'pro' contingent, and I feel sad that it is being constantly perpetuated. Any clue as to when the articles will stop? If so, would you tell us? I'll return to the site when they're finished, as it's just more of the same on this topic, and I'm never going to be hopping from 'anti' to 'pro'. Thank you.
'The debate seems to be fizzling out.' Really?
4 years ago we searched high and low to find enough articles to even call it a "debate". Two years ago submitted articles doubled! And now, literally scores of articles to be perused with the intent of hosting a wide variety of insight.
One of the articles on hold is entitled: Camels With Hammers published just three months ago. Trevin Wax at The Gospel Coalition wrote a hypothetical conversation between an anti-homosexuality Christian pastor and a pro-gay talk show host called “How I Wish the Homosexuality Debate Would Go”. This article was recommended on Facebook no less than 18,000 times.
A slowdown or waning info interest in the LGBT arena is at best a distant reality. There are the Duck Dynasty, Uganda's death threats, SS marriage sanctions and the Olympic cleanup shifting from enhancement drugs to 'straight only' competition keeping the debate current. And, of course, our humble attempt.
Are we suprised that the questions around the LGBT engage coments and reactions?
I was brought up in a SA suronding were questions like these was not talked about in anyway - but.... of course it was quite alright to wisper about 'her' and 'him' .... Im sure you all has hade similar experienses.
So, lets talk about those questions - in respect of one anothers different views.
1. In Corinthians Paul teaches it is certainly the job of Christians to judge those inside the church but not those outside the church - so yes we are to pass judgement to clean up the church.
2. Christians are not to associate in fellowship with anyone who claims to be a Christian yet indulges in a variety of sins: sexual sin (specifically incest - chp 5 adulterers, prostitutes, homosexuals - chp 6)or stealing or greed or idol worship or abuse or drunkness or swindling.
3.Sexual sin is put in a category separate from the other sins listed (end of ch 6) because it is a sin against one's own body - the temple of God argument.
4.What we are seeing on this blog re the LGBT issue is:
a) people asking Christians to accept that practicising a LGBT lifestyle isn't a sin like the others listed, because people are born this way - if that's true, and I'm not convinced of that premise, then people are born heterosexual as well, yet adultery is a sin even though there is some evidence that men are genetically more prone to adultery than females. Frankly, everyone is probably born with a propensity to sin but that doesn't mean we don't deal with our inborn tendencies to sin.
b) people advocating that the Bible be ignored on certain points - specifically:
i) to ignore the requirement to discipline homosexual practice
ii) to ignore the Biblical assertion that such people are just claiming to be Christians - we are being asked in these articles to accept LGBT people as sincere Christians despite that the Bible here says they are just claiming to be Christians.
iii) to ignore the teaching of Jesus on marriage - this pertains to the issue of SS marriage because the teaching of Jesus is that marriage is between a man and a woman. I also believe that Jesus' silence on same sex issues cannot be interpreted as license, if we take into account that he was a Jew born and brought up in Jewish culture whose position would have contrasted with a Roman culture full of various sexual practices. Silence does not actually mean Jesus said nothing about these issues, it probably means there was no need to record it. The gospels written by and for Jews would not have had to spell out the Jewish position on same sex issues - it would have been taken for granted in Jewish culture.
C) People are being asked not to apply in this instance the "Go and sin no more" response - when Jesus dealt with the woman found in adultery he didn't say 'take pride in the way God created you to be heterosexual and go forth to carry on as you were doing'. I agree he was sensitive and protected her from public scorn, but he made the requirement clear - go and sin no more, and his response while quiet, was not private because someone recorded it.
Notably on some issues the apostle Paul thankfully distinguishes between his own thoughts/advice, and the Lord's. On these items that require judgement, he says that this judgement is in the name of the Lord Jesus (chp.5). It has divine sanction. The LGBT community is asking the church to ignore these scriptures. I don't believe the church can do so.
"What we are seeing on this blog re the LGBT issue is: people advocating that the Bible be ignored on certain points"
Deuteronomy 22:28-29
If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.
Should that be ignored?
To the person who said 'The LGBT community is asking the church to ignore these scriptures. I don't believe the church can do so.'
Thank you, whoever you are - I'm so grateful for your contribution. When God created a companion for Adam, He chose a woman, and the population multiplied through Eve, obviously not a man. And Jesus' New Testament teaching on marriage involved a man and a woman, not a woman and a woman, or a man and a man.
Same sex relationships are nowhere advocated in Scripture.
After quoting an OT passage, someone asks "Should that be ignored?"
My approach to scripture is liberal enough to regard scripture as progressive revelation and that the OT reflects the norms and culture of the times before fuller revelation in Christ happened.
Jesus did not call for stoning of the woman caught in adultery. Paul the apostle did not call for those who claim to be Christians to be stoned. They are to be removed from the fellowship of the church. I think we can assume that this is unnecessary if they go and sin no more - if thieves stop stealing, if swindlers stop swindling, if greedy people stop grabbing more than their share, if adulterers stop committing adultery,if homosexuals stop practising homosexuality, if abusers stop abusing,if prostitutes stop selling their bodies. It's the response modelled by Jesus - go and sin no more.
That is the position of the NT - the fullness of revelation for Christian practice that we have in Christ that supercedes the norms of any culture ancient, present or future. If this is what it means to be labelled homophobic by LGBT people, then so be it. The early Christians were sometimes thought to be the garbage heap of the world.
Should there be witch hunts for sinners to expel them from the church? No, in fact everyone has sinned, but all real Christians acknowledge their sin and are working out their salvation in the privacy of their prayer closets. Nobody even usually knows about other peoples' sins unless they choose to confess and share knowledge of their sins with other believers. However, when a sinner flaunts his/her sin publicly, or it becomes public knowledge like the incestual man in I Cor chp 5, there is no choice but for the church to deal with it.
I know the ultimate is to love God and love other people, but love and discipline are not contradictory or opposing concepts. In fact love without discipline is not love. All men will know we're disciples if we have love for each other, but those who love me are those who obey. Obedience to the fullest revelation in Christ is challenging but even as parents we know that when we have to discipline our children we still love them and it's because we love them that we discipline them and bring them up and don't just let them grow up any old way. Love and discipline - you can't have one without the other.
Love and discipline - you can't have one without the other. Well said - discipline has been forgotten in these (very) emotional postings.
So the fullness of revelation for Christian practice that we have in Christ supercedes the norms of any culture ancient, present or future... except for Leviticus - that still applies.
That said, Christ was quiet on homosexuality, but he did say this about divorce:
"I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”
So while it's easy to tell a gay person to "sin no more", what would you say to a man who remarried under the conditions above? What does he need to do to "sin no more"?
Post a Comment